"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'll look into it, but I was already wondering if we shouldn't bound
>>> the number of tapes somehow. It's a bit hard to believe that 28000
>>> tapes is a sane setting.
>>
>> Well, since they are not actually tapes, why not?
> I wonder what the OS does when we repeatedly open and close those files
> because we are short on filedescriptors ?
At the moment, nothing, because all the "tapes" are just I/O buffers on
the same OS-level file (or more accurately, one file per gigabyte of
data).
If we get rid of logtape.c as Luke wants to do, then we might have some
issues here.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
